Assessment of EoI:72



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 72 in South East Asia (mainland) - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: The Titiwangsa Central Forest Spine covers 30% of the total rainforest area in Peninsular Malaysia and with high biodiversity

Evidence B:The TCFS- proposed project area is home to 135,000 Indigenous Peoples, host to around 18 KBA’s, patches of intact forest, diverse wildlife including several mammal species under threat of extinction and providing other environmental services, including as source of water to Penisular Malaysia


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: As indicated in the spatial resource

Evidence B:The area reportedly contains more than 341.7 million tonnes of carbon stock and have the capacity to mitigate 3.87 million tonnes of carbon from emission while sequestering 45,681.3 tonnes of carbon per year.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 1/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: As detailed in the project proposal, the constraints are due to a combination of external threats and lack of coherence in national policies.

Evidence B:Although not evident from the Supporting Spatial Resources provided with this scoring tool, proposal describes existence of IPLCs in the area dating back to almost 2 decades using and managing the forest in their traditional ways . The proposal also posits that 10-20% of the land is gazzetted as Orang Asli reserve while the rest are under the state.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Proposal explains the links between Orang Asli (indigenous) communities and the surrounding forest areas.

Evidence B:The proposal elaborates the dependence of the around 9 diverse IPLCs on the territories found in what is the “TCFS” for their overall wellbeing including culture and identity for thousands of years. The rich physiogeological and biological resources, including the pathches of intact forest lands reflect the principle of sustainable use among IPLCs which are also expressed through their spirituality and harmonious relationship with nature.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 3/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Cumulative development pressure seems to relatively increase from medium low to very high from inside to the fringes of the TCFS. High to very high development pressure is particularly observed in areas with land deals. These pose serious threats to lives and limbs of IPLCs within the area and other biodiversity .


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The Federal Constitution acknowledge customary land and the Aboriginal Act 1954 provides for IPLC use of land and access to resources but not ownership as provided for by the UNDRIP. There are policies, listed by proponent, in place but are not being maximized for IPLC-led conservation.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Based on national and state policies and strategies, there are spaces and opportunities for IPLC-led conservation. How this are being operationalized on the ground, however, may be a challenge especially among IPLCs who lack engagement with government agencies or are misinformed.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The indigenous organizations have been working actively in these areas, however to the extent that these are due to the interventions of the organization is a claim that would need to be analyzed further.

Evidence B:Proponent has 8 years of work with 30 villages around capacity building that enable 10-15% of communities to engage in advocacy; highlight of past work is the resolution of 5 land/forest cnflict cases in favor of the IPLC against a logging interest.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/3

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: There is a caution to this however as the Organization proposes to solicit money from the communities without themselves offering in cofinancing (even in-kind). This would seem to be an undue burden to the community and would need to be properly resolved if there is a second stage.

Evidence B:Proponent has sourced out 3 small -medium amounts to co-finance the project. It has three other proposals on the pipeline. Interestingly, it also includes “community counterparts” in its resource mobilization.



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 25/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 18/30

Average Total Score: 21.5/30



Performance of EoI 72 in South East Asia (mainland) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed approach is seemingly well-aligned to ICI objectives. There is, however, very weak acknowledgement/linkage of existing IPLC structures, knowledge and practice that viz-a-viz contemporary /mainstream practice based on state laws.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: NA/6

Average: 4/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Activities and results are well aligned but may benefit from being more specific and defined measures/targets.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:As it is, without specific and measurable results, the proposal is slightly overambitious. In addition, a 2 day training for IPLCSs with heavy content like national policies and a 2 weeks mapping may be very sweeping and may pose challenge to substance and learning.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: With the budget range, more ambition could be anticipated.

Evidence B:The proposed scope of the project, activities and results are within the EoI range of investment. Need to develop the detailed workplan not only to thresh out budgetary requirements but also how to operationalize the observations in the items above.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:A small amount ( U\(D 68,500.00) of co-financing has been secured. There are 3 other identified potential source of cofinancing, which , if realized, will contribute to a total of U\)D 182,094.00 only.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 4/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:From the total TCFS area of 1.6 million hectares, the project targets a high of 1.1 million hectares, or almost 70% of the TCFS under improved management, directly benefitting only 25% of the estimated 135,000 IPLC population within the area.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: The organization could be encouraged to condense their indicators into a few that would be relevant while being easy to monitor

Evidence B:Additional cultural and livelihood indicators are aligned with the project goals. However, as indicators, they have to be reformulated to define how it is measured. This, and the results expected from the main activities proposed may benefit from the gathering and/or development of a baseline data.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The project is a continuation of an earlier initiative proven successful in terms of sustaining biodiversity with benefits to IPLCs. Existing policies and practice, however, perpetrates threats to sustainability. Significantly associated to sustaining conservation and biodiversity is the general call for the full and effective recognition of IPLCs and their rights to their territories in policy and practice at all levels.


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proponents are experts in various fields needed for the project. The project has defined at least 4 ways on how it will contribute to the NDCs and consistency with 5 NBSAP goals.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: NA/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:There is nothing explicit on gender except in response to question 15. It would be good to see how this approach, described in question 15, is further actualized in the activities, outcomes and results.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: NA/5

Average: 3/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proposed activities and results have a potential transformative result at scale but may be significantly relative to the level of capacities, strength and particular situations of IPLCs involved.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 31/40
Reviewer B Total Score: NA/40

Average Total Score: 31/40



Performance of EoI 72 in South East Asia (mainland) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: NA/6 Reviewer B: 2/6

Average: 2/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The proponent is an NGO partnering with IPLC networks, NGOs, Academe and some government agencies.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 2/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 3/6

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:Proponent demonstrate technical expertise and leadership related to the project. Its geographical reach, however, is limited and taps on other organizations for this purpose.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 2/5

Average: 2/5

Evidence A: In any further iteration of this proposal, the clear roles of the two IPLC organizations need to be identified. COAC has indicated it had not been aware of this project proposal and this may be similar for other organizations named in the proposal, on the other hand JKOASM has put in a letter of support. Considering that a range of stakeholders, including government departments are named in support of this proposal, further development should be conditional upon being able to mobilize their consent for participation.

Evidence B:Except as facilitators for activities, IPLC organizations listed as partners have no defined roles in project design and governance. This should be addressed in the development of a full proposal.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 5/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The lead proponent is composed of technical experts in various natural sciences and conservation fileds, and have implemented a 3-year project under the UNDP GEF exposing them to the GEF’s project management system.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 4/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: As per information contained in the proposal.

Evidence B:The proponent have at least five funding streams and perform annual external audits. It is currently implementing a project with funds at the U\(D 100,000 - 1M. Past projects, based on references given, range from U\)D 7,000 - 50,000.00


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1/2

Evidence A: Receiving an SGP grant does equate experience with safeguard standards

Evidence B:The proponent recieved a 3-year grant from GEF under UNDP’s Small Grant Programme. How it institutionalized the safeguards/standards from this earlier engagement is not clear/explained.



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 16/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 18/30

Average Total Score: 17/30



Performance of EoI 72 in South East Asia (mainland) - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)